Socialism is evil.

[Smallc]

I notice you live in Winnipeg.

I do not live in Winnipeg.

[Smallc]

And it's quite telling that surveys of First Nations people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have shown that there have been times when they have had so little money that they didn't have enough food to eat.

They always have enough money for beer, cigarettes, and gambling though. Again, I live here, you don't.

[Bonam]

I have maintained that the systems in the west are a hybrid - best of breed - of pure socialism and capitalism. They don't appear to be threatened any time soon and your post doesn't prove to me otherwise.

I disagree, I think the systems are threatened, in that most Western countries are deep in debt and only going deeper. Western economies seem incapable of producing the revenues that the governments want to spend on all the various social programs we have invented.

[pinko]

I disagree, I think the systems are threatened, in that most Western countries are deep in debt and only going deeper. Western economies seem incapable of producing the revenues that the governments want to spend on all the various social programs we have invented.

Would you not agree that part of the problem relates to the crony capitalism prevalent in major economies such as Britain and the USA?

[Smallc]

Western economies seem incapable of producing the revenues that the governments want to spend on all the various social programs we have invented.

You mean people are unwilling to pay for the programs that they want.

[Pliny]

Pliny, what's the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism is basically the end goal of communism. Communism achieves that end through revolutionary means. Revolution, although not totally discarded by some of the most hard core socialists, has basically fallen way to "progressive" evolutionary means in order to achieve the total socialist state. Communism in the sense of revolution is more or less dead.

The creeping socialism we see in western society is because doctrines such as anarchism, communism and social democracy draw on the key values of socialism and it is thus often difficult to separate the various schools and movements from each other.

Socialism has arrived at it's final goal when it has achieved the total state. It is in essence that final state and it has always included in it's description the means by which the goal is achieved, and that means is a progressive transitional phase of capitalism toward the total state.

[Pliny]

Tanks in the streets ? When ? At 75 years or so and counting, I don't see that any time soon. Is China less likely to engage in war than it was 75 years ago ? I'd say so.

The invasion of Kuwait is relevant how ?

I have maintained that the systems in the west are a hybrid - best of breed - of pure socialism and capitalism. They don't appear to be threatened any time soon and your post doesn't prove to me otherwise.

I suppose you can disregard the signs such as street riots in Greece and France and the huge unfunded liabilities of European governments and say well I don't see anything any time soon but you would have to hide your head in the sand.

At least you admit to the socialist/capitalist hybrid. Others on this board deny any socialism exists because of the market economy.

The proletariat should own the means of production if it is going to be called socialism at all. Under some forms of socialism the bourgoisie, by the good graces of the State, can in name "own" the means of production but only as far as it benefits the State and the collective good. In other words the ultimate ownership is with the State. This form of socialism is called fascism.

The relevance of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq is merely one in a long list of 'wars' that big governments of all stripes engage in in their efforts to dominate economic resources and increase territorial influence. If the people really wanted control of their governments they wouldn't just claim that their vote was the true means of holding them under their thumb. It isn't. The true means is by maintaining economic domination over them. In all western nations this power over their governments has been lost and the vote is merely a means to acquire favour and privilege for the special interests of political parties be they left or right.

The wars of today are somewhat different than of previous times. Since 1914 they are, for the most part, ideologically based and thus not in the interests of the people but mostly in the interests of governments and the aggrandizement of the State. There was very little ideological warfare prior to the 20th century. The French Revolution may be held up as an exception but most had their base in imperialistic ambitions.

What would you say the ideological struggle was that brings us to be almost continuously at war. Or is war simply a contributor to the GDP and ecnoomic growth? We can go around and have great GDP figures but it doesn't mean we are better off or have higher living standards. The part of the GDP that actually makes a difference is the part that creates capital and wealth. Incessant war will contribute to the GDP but has a very costly product.

My post should not prove anything to you. You will have to look around you for proof. My intent is to encourage you to do so and bring some clarity to the basic fuzzy concepts that keeps the general public from understanding politics at all.

We move through time under ever-changing circumstance which makes life interesting; adapting, innovating, molding and directing our present and future life. Under the socialist state, that perfect place where all is well, we reduce our ability to adapt and direct our future. Change becomes an unnecessary inconvenience to the State and as Utopia is realized there is no room or reason for change and innovation. In your view we have arrived at the best system, a hybrid of socialism/capitalism, the best. Unfortunately, you do not see the winds of change that will alter the balance. Life will not tolerate stagnation or even Utopia. There must be challenges set to it. If the individual has no challenges the only challenges will be for the state to keep the individual in a condition of ignorance, dependence and acceptance of the State as the source of his existence.

[Pliny]

Would you not agree that part of the problem relates to the crony capitalism prevalent in major economies such as Britain and the USA?

Is this the same socialist/capitalist hybrid system that Mr. Hardner finds so perfect? Why would you be demanding change to his Utopia?

Capitalists are merely a special interest that lobbies government no differently than other special interests but has the added advantage of being able to fund its efforts itself, if necessary. I suppose what you would like to see is it's profits taken so it has less influence in it's lobbying efforts. Economically that only means your GDP will shrink and goods and services will be more expensive. It is self defeating in that the profit level will be maintained.

[pinko]

Is this the same socialist/capitalist hybrid system that Mr. Hardner finds so perfect? Why would you be demanding change to his Utopia?

Capitalists are merely a special interest that lobbies government no differently than other special interests but has the added advantage of being able to fund its efforts itself, if necessary. I suppose what you would like to see is it's profits taken so it has less influence in it's lobbying efforts. Economically that only means your GDP will shrink and goods and services will be more expensive. It is self defeating in that the profit level will be maintained.

I suppose you are an apologist for crony capitalism where the state allows the corporate crooks to operate with impunity.

[Michael Hardner]

I suppose you can disregard the signs such as street riots in Greece and France and the huge unfunded liabilities of European governments and say well I don't see anything any time soon but you would have to hide your head in the sand.

How are these more significant than unrest in the 1960s, race riots in the 1990s ? It's all doom and gloom. Who is hiding their head in the sand when you're saying that western democracies are on the brink ?

At least you admit to the socialist/capitalist hybrid. Others on this board deny any socialism exists because of the market economy.

The proletariat should own the means of production if it is going to be called socialism at all. Under some forms of socialism the bourgoisie, by the good graces of the State, can in name "own" the means of production but only as far as it benefits the State and the collective good. In other words the ultimate ownership is with the State. This form of socialism is called fascism.

The relevance of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq is merely one in a long list of 'wars' that big governments of all stripes engage in in their efforts to dominate economic resources and increase territorial influence. If the people really wanted control of their governments they wouldn't just claim that their vote was the true means of holding them under their thumb. It isn't. The true means is by maintaining economic domination over them. In all western nations this power over their governments has been lost and the vote is merely a means to acquire favour and privilege for the special interests of political parties be they left or right.

The wars of today are somewhat different than of previous times. Since 1914 they are, for the most part, ideologically based and thus not in the interests of the people but mostly in the interests of governments and the aggrandizement of the State. There was very little ideological warfare prior to the 20th century. The French Revolution may be held up as an exception but most had their base in imperialistic ambitions.

So is/was there any 'pure' individual state, in your opinion ? This conversation is starting to sound like those in which Marxists state that Communism hasn't been tried yet.

We move through time under ever-changing circumstance which makes life interesting; adapting, innovating, molding and directing our present and future life. Under the socialist state, that perfect place where all is well, we reduce our ability to adapt and direct our future. Change becomes an unnecessary inconvenience to the State and as Utopia is realized there is no room or reason for change and innovation. In your view we have arrived at the best system, a hybrid of socialism/capitalism, the best. Unfortunately, you do not see the winds of change that will alter the balance. Life will not tolerate stagnation or even Utopia. There must be challenges set to it. If the individual has no challenges the only challenges will be for the state to keep the individual in a condition of ignorance, dependence and acceptance of the State as the source of his existence.

You're really a true believer. If you don't think that innovation hasn't happened in a hundred years, and capitalist based innovation to boot, then you're likely on your own.

Stagnation ? Where ? On this earth ?

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg:

You state:

"God does exist"

This god you refer to what form does it take? By this I mean what image do you have of this god.

It is not human and it is not temporal..this thing - does not abide by our standard laws of physic..nor does this thing actually have a form. What I believe is that the God factor...is so emense - so grand that it is almost beyond human conception...just because we can not fully realize something does not mean it does not exist...It is not some old man with a white beard..but it can be if you want...

Here is a little story about seeing God..My sister and I were driving down the highway...a rural road and we stopped at a light...I said to her.."I wonder what God looks like?" - then at that moment we saw a larger than life red SUV on the other side of the road...it was odd...it was just bigger than and automobile should be...At the wheel was this very large man - I am sure if he stepped out he would be over 7 feet tall...This fellow had this grand look - a huge white flowing beard.....My sister and I turned to each other and laughed...we asked to see God and he appeared in the manner we wished to see him in...a huge over sized Santa Clause.

Other than that...God is so distant...so huge - so cold yet so hot - so powerful - yet so helpless...we are a bit like him...we dream and our dreams manifest.. but we are just a faint mirror image of this entity...It is like a vibration - we believe in it...and IT believes in us...without this contract..we will eventually cease to exist..we are but a thought.

[cybercoma]

Socialism is basically the end goal of communism. Communism achieves that end through revolutionary means. Revolution, although not totally discarded by some of the most hard core socialists, has basically fallen way to "progressive" evolutionary means in order to achieve the total socialist state. Communism in the sense of revolution is more or less dead.

The creeping socialism we see in western society is because doctrines such as anarchism, communism and social democracy draw on the key values of socialism and it is thus often difficult to separate the various schools and movements from each other.

Socialism has arrived at it's final goal when it has achieved the total state. It is in essence that final state and it has always included in it's description the means by which the goal is achieved, and that means is a progressive transitional phase of capitalism toward the total state.

I see where my confusion is now. You have a different concept of socialism than others I have seen. Socialism, from my understanding, has different ends than communism. Communism's purpose is to overthrow the existing capitalist regime, through violent revolution and install an entirely different economic mode, while socialism's ends are to work with the existing order while seeking to level the economic playing field.

Edited February 17, 2011 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Would you not agree that part of the problem relates to the crony capitalism prevalent in major economies such as Britain and the USA?

Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean. The problem "relates to" the rate of growth in government expenditures outpacing the rate of growth of the economy. The main driver of growth in government expenditures are social/entitlement programs.

You mean people are unwilling to pay for the programs that they want.

No. "The people" are not a monolithic block who you can ascribe one generalized "want" to. A more accurate (but still overgeneralized) description is that people that pay the most taxes (the rich and middle class) don't want to pay higher taxes for programs that they don't want but that help mainly other people ("the poor").

Anyway, in the end, it's not a matter of being unwilling to pay for them. If the cost of these programs grows faster than the economy (which is the case), then eventually they cannot be paid for, whether people are willing or not.

[Smallc]

No. "The people" are not a monolithic block who you can ascribe one generalized "want" to. A more accurate (but still overgeneralized) description is that people that pay the most taxes (the rich and middle class) don't want to pay higher taxes for programs that they don't want but that help mainly other people ("the poor").

No, I'm sorry, but in our society you can't break it down like that. The people, in broad terms, shape what government does. It may not be what you like, but that makes you a minority among the people, and since money isn't a right and neither is opting out of programs, you have to go along with what the people want.

[Pliny]

How are these more significant than unrest in the 1960s, race riots in the 1990s ? It's all doom and gloom. Who is hiding their head in the sand when you're saying that western democracies are on the brink ?

They aren't too much different. Expect to see more.

So is/was there any 'pure' individual state, in your opinion ? This conversation is starting to sound like those in which Marxists state that Communism hasn't been tried yet.

I am not certain what you mean by a "pure individual state" but I'll guess you mean a state witout some form of government. You have to separate the individual as an entity from the group as an entity. The group is individuals acting. It is best that individuals act of their owno free will and what makes a gropu ios common understandings about their social interaction and behavior. We, as individuals, expect to live according to a sort of golden rule of doing unto others as they would do unto you wioth respect for the safety and sanctity of person and property. If we can hold this to be common among us then we have a group. In order to demonstrate one is a member of this group he must act accordingly. When we talk of doing unto others, then the term "others" does not have to include people who have not demonstrated they live by the same principle or are even considered eligible to be defined as "others".

Women and other races or religions have in the past not been considered individuals and were therefore not treated as "others". Including them in the "group" meant including them as individuals holding the same principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. All well and good except that in the broad inclusion of the term "others" there are individuals that don't live by that principle. One could take the left wing concept of capitalism in that it cares not a wit for others and concerns itself entirely with profit. In this respect they are separated from the larger group as not holding true to the basic principle of how individuals are expected to act towards others.

Different cultures may have customs, rituals, traditions, food, dress, languages and means of expressing the same principle of doing unto others. They could live alongside other cultures harmoniously if they held that common understanding of doing unto others, and the term "others" included the different cultures.

The reason we need government and laws is because some individuals do not live by the common understanding that binds a group together. So the role of government is to uphold the common bonds of the group by restricting individuals and other groups that will not uphold them.

Under "socialism" the government has progressed to the point where it assumes the individual will not uphold the common bonds and the individual must therefore be relieved of his free will and liberty to act. Once that determination has been made it has reached the level where it defines and interprets what the common bonds of the "group" shall be and individuals excercising free will are actually considered a threat to the group. The group has essentially become the State.

You can see that different cultures can live side by side harmoniously and cannopt be forced to live among each other. This is the failure of multi-culturalism. Government has decided to design and define the "common bonds" by assumption of what they should be among all cultures. It thus infringes upon them and tries to get them to somehow be homogeneous but remain separate, an absurd incongruity.

I am not an anarchist, Michael but a minarchist. We need a certain level of assuredness to the safety and security of our individual person and property. If we have that we can prosper. When government progresses to the point of claiming monopoly and a right to violating the safety and security of the individual it has lost sight of it's prime purpose including the ability to deliver justice.

I have run across those Marxists myself. The ones who say communism hasn't yet been tried. As it is an international movement they are correct. The world has not tried communism. The thing that socialists do not understand is the efficient use and distribution of resources. In times of plenty all would be well but in times of scarcity people are less likely to willingly share. Thus, for whatever reason scarcity occurs, be it drought, high demand, overpopulation, natural disaster, poor management, then tyranny is the only way to separate what some individuals may have.

You're really a true believer. If you don't think that innovation hasn't happened in a hundred years, and capitalist based innovation to boot, then you're likely on your own.

Stagnation ? Where ? On this earth ?

You simply don't get it, Michael. Standards of living occurred despite the progression of government. You are thinking that we have lived under the total state for the last hundred years. If you wish to make the comparison of progress of the standard of living as opposed to the total state. Perhaps you can look to Cuba. The people are for the most part living in the same conditions they did when the revolution succeeded in the fifties.

Or perhaps you can look to theocratic states that seem to be stuck in the 12th century for stagnation.

They are no different than any other total governing body that keeps actual social progress stagnant and the expression of individuality suppressed.

Have a glorious day!

[Pliny]

I suppose you are an apologist for crony capitalism where the state allows the corporate crooks to operate with impunity.

Why that would be fascist and I am far from being a fascist. Besides "crooks" of any stripe should be prosecuted. You are admitting to a failure of big government. I know you will say only because it is fascist and not socialist.

[Mr.Canada]

Why that would be fascist and I am far from being a fascist. Besides "crooks" of any stripe should be prosecuted. You are admitting to a failure of big government. I know you will say only because it is fascist and not socialist.

Parts of fascism would be good ideals for any society.

[Pliny]

I see where my confusion is now. You have a different concept of socialism than others I have seen. Socialism, from my understanding, has different ends than communism. Communism's purpose is to overthrow the existing capitalist regime, through violent revolution and install an entirely different economic mode, while socialism's ends are to work with the existing order while seeking to level the economic playing field.

Of course, socialism is so accomodating in working with the existing order.(sigh)

I see what you describe as it's "end" as being more it's method to an end, that being the total state.

We do basically agree on the communist concept though.

[Oleg Bach]

I see where my confusion is now. You have a different concept of socialism than others I have seen. Socialism, from my understanding, has different ends than communism. Communism's purpose is to overthrow the existing capitalist regime, through violent revolution and install an entirely different economic mode, while socialism's ends are to work with the existing order while seeking to level the economic playing field.

It is more sinister and insidious than that...arch capitalist contrive socialism so they can have more slaves that THINK they are free and equal.

[Pliny]

Parts of fascism would be good ideals for any society.

We part ways on this. While I believe conservative values and mores are important individual characteristics they only become fascist when they are enforced upon others, essentially making them criminals for holding a different set of values and mores.

[Oleg Bach]

We part ways on this. While I believe conservative values and mores are important individual characteristics they only become fascist when they are enforced upon others, essentially making them criminals for holding a different set of values and mores.

Facism is spreading....look at the upheavel in the middle east - this is orchestrated by facists...Globalist types...what bugs me about these people who lust for ultimate power and a one world government is in the fact that they take it upon themselves to create a world that THEY see as better with out consulting me or you! What the hell is it to them - or what buisness is it of theirs to attempt to rule a planet....even the devil plays by the rules - these facists...are even held in contempt by evil itself.

[Michael Hardner]

They aren't too much different. Expect to see more.

Are you trying to say that they're related ? It seems to me, rather, that these are occasional events that happen in every democracy.

I am not certain what you mean by a "pure individual state" but I'll guess you mean a state witout some form of government. You have to separate the individual as an entity from the group as an entity. The group is individuals acting. It is best that individuals act of their owno free will and what makes a gropu ios common understandings about their social interaction and behavior. We, as individuals, expect to live according to a sort of golden rule of doing unto others as they would do unto you wioth respect for the safety and sanctity of person and property. If we can hold this to be common among us then we have a group. In order to demonstrate one is a member of this group he must act accordingly. When we talk of doing unto others, then the term "others" does not have to include people who have not demonstrated they live by the same principle or are even considered eligible to be defined as "others".

Women and other races or religions have in the past not been considered individuals and were therefore not treated as "others". Including them in the "group" meant including them as individuals holding the same principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. All well and good except that in the broad inclusion of the term "others" there are individuals that don't live by that principle. One could take the left wing concept of capitalism in that it cares not a wit for others and concerns itself entirely with profit. In this respect they are separated from the larger group as not holding true to the basic principle of how individuals are expected to act towards others.

Different cultures may have customs, rituals, traditions, food, dress, languages and means of expressing the same principle of doing unto others. They could live alongside other cultures harmoniously if they held that common understanding of doing unto others, and the term "others" included the different cultures.

The reason we need government and laws is because some individuals do not live by the common understanding that binds a group together. So the role of government is to uphold the common bonds of the group by restricting individuals and other groups that will not uphold them.

Under "socialism" the government has progressed to the point where it assumes the individual will not uphold the common bonds and the individual must therefore be relieved of his free will and liberty to act. Once that determination has been made it has reached the level where it defines and interprets what the common bonds of the "group" shall be and individuals excercising free will are actually considered a threat to the group. The group has essentially become the State.

We do have common bonds, and values too. These are reflected in our constitution and in a more nebulous way, in the multi-faceted culture we have produced.

What's the alternative ? Some kind of non-governmental state ? I'm still waiting for you to give me an example.

You can see that different cultures can live side by side harmoniously and cannopt be forced to live among each other. This is the failure of multi-culturalism. Government has decided to design and define the "common bonds" by assumption of what they should be among all cultures. It thus infringes upon them and tries to get them to somehow be homogeneous but remain separate, an absurd incongruity.

"Tries to get them" how ? Multiculturalism is, in effect, a series of edicts, legal prescriptions and maybe some cultural festivals. It's a tiny effort compared to the large cultural and economic forces that bring people together.

The country IS multicultural, whether or not that is the official policy.

I am not an anarchist, Michael but a minarchist. We need a certain level of assuredness to the safety and security of our individual person and property. If we have that we can prosper. When government progresses to the point of claiming monopoly and a right to violating the safety and security of the individual it has lost sight of it's prime purpose including the ability to deliver justice.

I have run across those Marxists myself. The ones who say communism hasn't yet been tried. As it is an international movement they are correct. The world has not tried communism. The thing that socialists do not understand is the efficient use and distribution of resources. In times of plenty all would be well but in times of scarcity people are less likely to willingly share. Thus, for whatever reason scarcity occurs, be it drought, high demand, overpopulation, natural disaster, poor management, then tyranny is the only way to separate what some individuals may have.

You simply don't get it, Michael. Standards of living occurred despite the progression of government. You are thinking that we have lived under the total state for the last hundred years. If you wish to make the comparison of progress of the standard of living as opposed to the total state. Perhaps you can look to Cuba. The people are for the most part living in the same conditions they did when the revolution succeeded in the fifties.

Or perhaps you can look to theocratic states that seem to be stuck in the 12th century for stagnation.

They are no different than any other total governing body that keeps actual social progress stagnant and the expression of individuality suppressed.

Have a glorious day!

I'm saying that our form of government, the hybrid, has succeeded with its socialistic elements intact.

I'm still waiting for an example of a state such as you described, to compare against our model (which you insist will fail, 75 years on).

It is indeed a glorious day - very warm. Cheers.

[Mr.Canada]

Facism is spreading....look at the upheavel in the middle east - this is orchestrated by facists...Globalist types...what bugs me about these people who lust for ultimate power and a one world government is in the fact that they take it upon themselves to create a world that THEY see as better with out consulting me or you! What the hell is it to them - or what buisness is it of theirs to attempt to rule a planet....even the devil plays by the rules - these facists...are even held in contempt by evil itself.

It is done by the Islamic socialists against the fascists.

[Pliny]

Facism is spreading....look at the upheavel in the middle east - this is orchestrated by facists...Globalist types...what bugs me about these people who lust for ultimate power and a one world government is in the fact that they take it upon themselves to create a world that THEY see as better with out consulting me or you! What the hell is it to them - or what buisness is it of theirs to attempt to rule a planet....even the devil plays by the rules - these facists...are even held in contempt by evil itself.

I don't have any argument with your basic idea that there are individuals that consider they should be running the world. It's just getting to be that there are too many of them and the competition is getting stiff. A lot of them do know about competition. It's the greatest sin according to JD Rockefeller which reveals how he approached the subject of capitalism. It certainly wasn't because he observed others being sinfully competitive. It was a moment of reflection upon his own youth.

[Pliny]

Are you trying to say that they're related ? It seems to me, rather, that these are occasional events that happen in every democracy.

They will always happen, Michael. The form of government is irrelevant.

I don't want to go in circles on this and must point out that the difference between the riots you mention in the US were about race and equality under the law. The riots today in Europe are about maintaining entitlements that government in the past has promised to provide out of the public purse and finds it impossible to fulfil today. It is basically an economic issue and not a human rights issue. A standard of living is not an entitlement that can be guaranteed by governments because governments are too flighty and whimsical. They may last your lifetime and you may be happy but if you follow the history of governments in the past they do not last long beyond the point where they take control of the money supply. The average would be a generation. The Romans did it, the Russians did it, The French did it, and the Americans and the British have now done it. It is a matter of time before the money is debased and becomes a valueless fiat currency. The USSR failed quickly because they didn't go through the debasement phase and immediately went to an unbacked fiat currency.

We do have common bonds, and values too. These are reflected in our constitution and in a more nebulous way, in the multi-faceted culture we have produced.

Basically, you are right we have common bonds and values of a very basic nature as humans. We are in trouble with some cultural values especially concerning women's rights, theocratic supremacy, capital punishment and tolerance of different races and religions.

What's the alternative ? Some kind of non-governmental state ? I'm still waiting for you to give me an example.

Not a non-government state. A state that recognizes we can hold basic human understandings. But if one culture decides it wishes to treat women as chattel and another decides women should have equal rights as all individuals then are we to force one to change? Does might make right?

Change by example must be the means. If it proves that treating women as chattel is more beneficial to society then maybe we should re-adopt that concept. But it isn't in keeping with our current understanding and definition of a "person" and that a person of any gender, race or religion should be treated equally under the law. There are cultures that do hold women to be second class citizens or their religion should be preferential.

"Tries to get them" how ? Multiculturalism is, in effect, a series of edicts, legal prescriptions and maybe some cultural festivals. It's a tiny effort compared to the large cultural and economic forces that bring people together.

A tiny effort? We have a whole government department with portfolio dedicated to this tiny effort.

The country IS multicultural, whether or not that is the official policy.

yes. But we expect assimilation and violations of our basic understandings as humans will keep us segregated. Things like gender equality and mutual religious respect. There actually is nothing wrong with having these differences but the enactment of laws cannot change them and self-segregation will be the result. While we can agree that all people should have equality under the law we must ensure that our definition of people is the same. Women are second class people in some cultures and thus will not be regarded as having equal rights under the law. At the time of the framing of the Constitution it stated that all "men" are created under the law. Women and Blacks at the time were not considered men and did not have equal rights under the law.

I'm saying that our form of government, the hybrid, has succeeded with its socialistic elements intact.

And I'm saying the progressive growth of the socialistic elements in government are increasingly detrimental to the prosperity and well-being of future generations. It is economically unviable.

I'm still waiting for an example of a state such as you described, to compare against our model (which you insist will fail, 75 years on).

The US of A prior to 1910. It's the only example. Some Presidents such as Lincoln violated basic principles of the Constitution but big government that intervened in every aspect of people's lives did not exist. Women's equality and civil rights were not possible under the laws and the granting of personhood had to be made for them to win those rights. Society was already moving towards equality for all persons. Stodgy laws on the books that should never have been made retarded societal efforts at evolving toward equality just as religious law retards the evolution of women's rights in some theocratic states.

It is indeed a glorious day - very warm. Cheers.

Enjoy it! I hear it is -25 in Calgary today.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Pliny